Can BSA 's antigay policy....

[le Voyageur]

littlebillie

 

S4A, hey...then your term "gay friendly" was a compliment. I stand corrected, my apoligies your way for the use of the term "homophobic".......

 

My concern in this matter is this, will there come a time in the future when Unit Leaders, by staying the course with BSA's antigay policy become subject to prosecution under State and Federal hate crime laws... it's an legal avenue not yet travelled, but seems the more plausible. Going after volunteers would quickly wreck havoc on the program....

[littlebillie]

le V - thanks, and much appreciated. also, duly noted, it takes a mensch - and it looks like you are!

 

Bob White - talking about being a girl is one thing - one thing well off the point. Yes, it's genetically determined - but girls are not even in the Charter, which doesn't say 'heterosexual boys only'. So let's look at some other genetic determinants - like being black, or having various physical challenges, both of which you can be while a boy! Scouting is blind to race and disability (genetic OR other, of course).

 

So if it turns out that being gay is genetically determined, even for some, then frankly, I'd expect a lot of re-evaluations to go on, all over the place. For example, many folks call it human perversity - but if it turned out it was a God-given trait, I'm guessing a whole lot of discussion and justification at the least, for those.

 

And soooo... I was just curious if Executive had anything in its bag of position statements NOW to cover that possiblity whenever THEN...

[Bob White]

So then littlebillie we agree that since no other membership guideline is determined merely by it's genetic origin then we could expect no change in the requirements should a genetic link be found with homosexuality.

 

BW

[littlebillie]

Bob,

 

Facile, but false. I'm not sure if you used the examples of girls being genetically different in reference to qualifying for an organization chartered for boys out of confusion, but if so, I'm not surprised this blurs too.

 

No, see - this would be the Scouts saying "you're not allowed because of behavior associated with a genetic trait", rather than saying it's because of an act of choice for a certain 'lifestyle'. Quite a difference. Between being, say, avowed and born. You can't, for example, 'avow' your natural eye color.

 

It's quite a difference, i'd say.

 

"So then BW, we agree that since no other membership exclusion is determined genetic origin then we could expect no further exclusionary requirements should a genetic link be found with homosexuality."

 

From your perspective, I imagine that's just as facile, and just as false, as I viewed yours, eh? :-) but that's what makes a horserace!

 

 

 

[NJCubScouter]

Littlebillie, if you believe that a scientific finding that homosexuality is genetic would make a difference to certain people, I suggest that you think back to some of the discussions that have taken place in this forum regarding evolution. Some of the same people who are the most insistent that homosexuality is immoral, were the ones taking the position that the theory of evolution cannot possibly be correct, because it contradicts the Bible. In other words, the Bible wins over science every day of the week. How prevalent this attitude is within the BSA as a whole, I'm not sure, but I'm also not sure that I want to find out.

[Bob White]

My point littlebillie is that scouting has never based its decisions on membership solely on genetics and so why would it choose to do so for homosexuality?

 

The BSA's stance has nothing to do with the origin or "cause" of any sexuality. If it was proved that atheism was caused by the presence or lack of a particular gene it would not make atheism more in keeping with our mission nor atheists more welcome as members.

 

 

Bob White

[Rooster7]

Bob,

 

As much as I "enjoy" debating you on the interpretation of certain BSA policies, I must say - I enjoy agreeing with you much more. I believe you are stating BSA's position well.

[littlebillie]

NJCubScouter, yeah, I do know what you're saying, BUT - so far, even among the anti-evolutionists, I've not read ANYone saying gene theory is wrong. I know there will be plenty who say that even if it is genetic, the Lord is testing them, and they should abstain totally. Even so, I'd hope these, and some of the less entrenched would at least step back and say, genes are part of God's design for humankind, and so a genetic homosexual must be part of God's plan as well.

 

Oh, yeah, some would fight this, remaining entrenched; some would likely say that even genes can be affected by Satan or sin, and end up calling it a birth defect of some kind - but even ths, as abhorrent as it may be, would be a foot in some doors.

 

Bob White - "My point...is that scouting has never based its decisions on membership solely on genetics and so why would it choose to do so for

homosexuality? " My point, too! No need to exclude if its genetic and not free will! It accepts all other boys' genetic traits - it should accept this too.

 

Thanks!

 

 

[Quixote]

littlebillie states

 

"genes are part of God's design for humankind, and so a genetic homosexual must be part of God's plan as well".

 

I probably fall into the category you describe here, but must point out that from my perspective you can say the same thing about diseases and other forms of abnormal genetics such as the gene that causes arthritis or the genes responsible for making certain races more succeptable to some diseases than others. If there is a homosexual gene, it is just as much an abnormality as other genes that cause other conditions and defects in man and is something to overcome as it is definately NOT normal.

 

If God uses genetics for His purpose (which i wouldn't be surprised at), then I guess he just intends for everyone with a fault in their genetic code to give in to their condition? I don't buy it.

 

Let's take the genetic marker HLAB27 (the one for rheumatoid arthritis) as an example. I know that I personally have tested negative for this, but others in my family have it. Are they to just give in and not fight AGAINST the condition? No doubt the STANDARD genetic structure of man does not include this gene and it is an abnormality that sticks around - why hasn't evolution done away with these abnormalities? evolution has had plenty of time to do so according to science. I guess God intended for people in my family to develop arthritis and other auto immune diseases? Maybe he intended for us to have the condition, but not to just accept it and say - "oh, it's just who i am".

 

Is it POSSIBLE that God does indeed test his children and place obstacles in their way to draw them to Him by seeking His help in OVERCOMING their personal condition?

[littlebillie]

Quixote identifies an issue. IF there is a genetic component or cause - will it be identified as a 'disease' or 'disability' or rather as a trait or characteristic?

 

I am short (but cute!), and I have blue eyes. These are genetic as much as Quixote's example. I do not, however, wear lifts or lenses! So.

 

" If there is a homosexual gene, it is just as much an abnormality as other genes that cause

other conditions and defects in man and is something to overcome as it is definately NOT normal. "

 

in an overpopulated world, is homosexuality a defect, or a response to population pressure? once again, a God-given gift of redirection!

 

"Is it POSSIBLE that God does indeed test his children and place obstacles in their way to draw them to Him by seeking His help in ACCEPTING their personal condition?" Some things aint never gonna get OVERCOME, and your argument needs to encompass those as well, I'd say!

 

But even taking Quixote's argument as it stands - IF it is ever (wrongly, I'd say) classified as a DISEASE or DISORDER, then Scouting opens its door to exclusion of the disabled, the ADA, etc. OR it spins a new position, a new policy, and new criteria.

 

 

[packsaddle]

le Voyageur, to your original question I would say 'no', largely for the reasons Rooster mentions. But Rooster, one thing you said brought back a vivid memory,"...those folks and their supporters who would force their will on private organizations..." In a similar situation longer ago than I like to admit, my minister and I worked on God and Country for long hours each week for a couple of years. He was in the midst of a crisis and he confided his pain to me. And I learned then to appreciate the struggle for truth. He alone at our church (Presbyterian) was in support of desegregation. He stuck with his conscience and preached the same. A few short weeks after I received the award he was fired. A lesson of majority rule that I will never forget.

 

littlebillie, as with artistic talent and other traits, I doubt that anything more than a genetic propensity will ever be found for homosexuality. For this and most other behaviors the nature/nurture argument will live on...we have so much to look forward to. As for foisting one faith above others,...don't give them any ideas now.

 

NJ, I have never observed even a slight tendency for BSA to turn its back on science for the reasons you mention. However, I doubt this is due to their cleverness of intellect.

[littlebillie]

packsaddle,

 

in nature v. nurture, there's some tough calls to be made for any genetic analysis, aren't there? rat studies have suggested that part of the nurture is population pressure; the recent gay sheep mentioned here and reported elsewhere raise the question of what the nurture would have been in the first place.

 

still, while I'd guess that an experiment could be designed to determine - say, if a gene were set just so, and there were no nurturant influence - how much is genetic and how much environmental for non-human species, I'm not sure how it could ever ethically be applied to humans..?

 

finally, I'm confused about this. let's say something like imprinting is at work, at some particular, crucial point - is this nature OR nurture? when a duckling starts following a turkey around - now, what IS that, in these terms?

 

(hope I'm not off course with all this - you DID say that you have some expertise in this neighborhood, didn't you? if not, sorry!)

[packsaddle]

littlebillie, Your comments are some of the reasons that studies of animal behavior are so interesting...and difficult. And also good reason to study chemicals and plants at least part of the time.

 

One way to diminish the confusion is to think in terms of genotypic vs phenotypic expression. We are well on the way to complete genotypic descriptions of many biota (but still far from understanding how it all works). This side is fairly 'hard' in its scientific rigor. We are fairly certain for simple traits (eye color, mid-digital hair, PKU disease) and just a few traits that have behavioral symptoms (Huntington's disease). But where an expression is not a disease or where it only influences a behavior, it remains a question.

On the phenotypic side everything goes. For sexual identity, there is merely some evidence for a hypothetical genetic basis. I say hypothetical because the actual genetic basis has not been identified through experimentation or any other way.

 

In some sense the confusion about animal behavior relates to why I am suspicious of the concept of 'nature'. I mentioned a while back that the concept of 'nature' has little utility because in its broadest respect, nothing is unnatural. (the supernatural spiritual world is, by definition, unnatural in this sense of course).

Because humans are arguably rational beings, we have continuously tried to make sense of our observations of the world. We may sense patterns and subsequently describe them as 'order'. If such order is pleasant or beneficial, we may describe some 'purpose' to explain the existence of such order. The concept of 'natural law' comes to mind...and much of the tortured logic you see in all these threads. We cling to purpose and order so tenaciously that it leads us in fantastic directions and we sometimes engage in bizarre behavior. For example, in 1386 a trial was held in which the accused had allegedly disfigured a child. The accused stood before the court in a waistcoat, breeches, and with white gloves. The accused was sentenced to first receive similar maiming, then to be garroted and hanged at the village scaffold. The accused was, literally, a pig. Such examples are endless and extend up through the 1990s. My response would have been to try to heal the child and then hold a barbecue. But that would have been against the law.

 

We like to think our behavior is more complex than other animals and I am willing to work on that assumption. You correctly point out that some behaviors are 'instinctive', meaning that they apparently are not learned. We have instincts as well and it should not be a shock if we learn that the adaptive advantage such instincts have imparted as a result of evolutionary processes have a genetic basis. We just don't know how the connection works and we don't know how strong it is. For any of them.

 

The contention that sexual identity has a genetic basis is not outrageous. But the precise degree that the genotype ultimately influences the phenotype will not likely be resolved soon. In the meantime persons with one preconceived notion can continue to argue against the others based on precisely the same observations.

You are correct that it is a difficult problem to resolve. But to mention another thread quickly engorging itself, I don't concern myself with TJ beyond his ability to pass the background check. If I shared a tent with him my only concern would be how loud he snored (I'm probably just as bad).